Yep that was my assumption - I didn't consider the use case of an admin making changes for other users.
D. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Because we need to let the API know which follower to delete/unfollow. > For now you can definitely leave it off, as we don't have the concept > of an administrative user with control over other users. So it would > just be DELETE api2/tags/TAGNAME/followers and then get the user to > unfollow from User.currentUser. > > Ethan > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> OK - working on it now.. Just checked in the code >> >> Why is the "USERID" in the DELETE api2/tags/TAGNAME/followers/USERID >> call necessary? >> >> D. >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Dick, >>> >>> It looks like it is problems with Boxed vs. un-Boxed values. The error >>> you are currently seeing is because tagId is a Box[String] but By() >>> expects a String in that position. So you need to un-Box it. I'd >>> recommend changing >>> >>> def followTag(tagId: Box[String]): LiftResponse = { >>> val ret: Box[Tuple3[Int,Map[String,String],Box[Elem]]] = >>> for (user <- User.currentUser) >>> yield { >>> val tag = Tag.findAll(By(Tag.name, tagId)).headOption >>> >>> to >>> >>> def followTag(tagId: Box[String]): LiftResponse = { >>> val ret: Box[Tuple3[Int,Map[String,String],Box[Elem]]] = >>> for (user <- User.currentUser) >>> yield { >>> val tag = Tag.findAll(By(Tag.name, tagId.openOr(""))).headOption >>> >>> Calling the openOr() method on a Box will return the value inside the >>> Box (a String in this case), or if the Box is Empty it will return the >>> parameter passed to the method ("" in this case). Hopefully searching >>> for a blank string will not return any results, but please check for >>> that! >>> >>> Once you make this change, you'll get a bunch more errors that we can >>> work through. Most of them are similar, revolving around Box or Option >>> and incorrect type signatures for functions. Let's work through these >>> one-by-one? I should be able to respond more quickly today. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Ethan >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi Dick, >>>> >>>> Great! I'll definitely take a look tonight. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ethan >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Checked my first steps for follow/unfollow for tag/conversations. >>>>> >>>>> Conversations looks fine (I haven't tested it yet) but there is a >>>>> compile problem for the tags-related code. >>>>> >>>>> @Ethan - can you take a quick look at it and see what I did wrong... >>>>> >>>>> D. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
